MAHARAJA TOURIST SERVICE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) RANGANATH MISRA, CJ.- These are applications under Article 32 of the Constitution on behalf of petitioners who hold All India Tourist <PG>491</PG> Permits granted under S. 63(7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 corresponding to S. 88(9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondent-States in these writ petitions are Haryana, Punjab, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. There is a common Act - the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924 - which is applicable to the States of Punjab and Haryana. In each of the other States there is a similar separate legislation. Under the taxing power in the several Acts provision has been made for taxation as also for levy of additional tax. It is the contention of the petitioners that the demand of additional taxis neither compensatory nor regulatory and, therefore, the levy is violative of Article 19(1(g) read with Article 301 of the Constitution. In regard to the States of Punjab and Haryana a special contention has been raised to the effect that Rule 8(v) of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1925 provides total exemption from liability of tax if the vehicle is brought into Punjab and kept for use within the State for a period not exceeding 30 days in a year and it is the contention of the petitioners that since the vehicles registered outside the States of Punjab and Haryana are not kept within the State for more than 30 days a year, the demand of tax in the face of Rule 8(v) is contrary to law.

(3.) THE same question came up for consideration before a two Judge bench in International Tourist Corporation v. State of Haryana . This court followed the decision referred to above of the larger group and observed